Image
Case Details: Dawn Express Courier Del Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 353 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- PRATHIBA M. SINGH & SHAIL JAIN, JJ
- S/Shri Nikhil Gupta, Rochit Abhishek, Ms. Neelam Murpana & Prince Nagpal, Advs., for the Petitioner
- S/Shri Anurag Ojha, SSC, Dipak Raj, Shashank Kumar, Ms. Garima Kumari, Robert Laishram, Bhupender, Advs. & Ravi Kant Srivastava, SPC, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The assessee challenged a notice issued under Section 74 of CGST/Delhi GST Act, following an investigation by the DGGI, which identified various discrepancies including alleged evasion of tax. The assessee submitted that the investigation was conducted against multiple companies and was not exclusive to them, and that pre-notice consultation under Rule 142 of CGST/Delhi GST Rules specifying the amount sought to be demanded was not provided. It was further contended that the notice for hearing allowed only one day to file a reply, which was completely violative of principles of natural justice. The assessee stated that it had paid the entire tax claimed and no further amount was due. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the challenge under Rule 142 was not tenable, as the assessee was aware of the investigation and had stated that no further amount was liable to be paid. However, issuing a notice for hearing with only one day’s time was completely violative of principles of natural justice. The High Court directed that the assessee be afforded 30 days to file a reply to the show cause notice and that a notice of personal hearing be granted.
